Posts Tagged ‘Sig Sauer’

Ever since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has rabidly pursued all manner of unconstitutional gun control legislation. Federal, state and local, the NeoComs stop at nothing to deprive us of our unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. Yet all is not lost as long as we stand firm.

The National Institute of Justice, the research branch of the Justice Department, recently leaked a memo evaluating many of the White House’s preferred gun control measures. For example, the NIJ says that Dianne Feinstein‘s defensive weapons ban is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence” because — wait for it — those firearms “are not a major contributor to gun crime.” Therefore, concludes the NIJ, in order for a ban to be effective, it would have to include no exemptions and be paired with a mandatory buyback program.

The NIJ reaches similar conclusions about magazine capacity limits, which would be ineffective while exempting currently owned magazines, and universal background checks, which won’t work without national gun registration because criminals use straw purchasers or steal weapons in order to avoid background checks.

The question is, will Obama and the NeoComs pursue NIJ’s recommended “fixes” to their obviously flawed plans?

While movement has temporarily slowed at the federal level, the states are busy enacting their own draconian gun restrictions. In Colorado, House Democrats passed four anti-gun bills including outlawing concealed carry on college campuses (more on that below), requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

As we noted last week, Magpul, maker of the popular PMAG magazine for AR-15 platform weapons, plans to carry through with its threat to leave the state because of the mag cap limit. Democrats tried offering them an exemption to manufacture their magazines in-state as long as they didn’t sell them there, but Magpul wisely didn’t take the bait. “If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here,” said Doug Smith, Magpul’s chief operating officer. The move would take $85 million and hundreds of jobs from Colorado.

In Washington, a bill is in the works with a requirement to “safely and securely store” any legally owned “assault weapons.” It would also provide sheriffs with the power to, “no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance,” upon penalty of up to one year in jail.

Maryland Democrats seek to ban “possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” That goes beyond Feinstein’s federal ban proposal in that it also bans “possessing.” Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 may possess ammunition, meaning they also can’t hunt. Things aren’t going well in the Used-to-Be Free State.

New York, an early adopter of unconstitutional restrictions post-Newtown, isn’t done. Democrats introduced a bill to require that all gun owners in New York “obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” Failing this, a gun owner will face “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm. Privilege? Our copy of the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of New York, numerous gun manufacturers and sellers are refusing to sell to law enforcement officers or government agencies anything that can’t be legally bought by the average citizen. This move applies to any other state that bans weapons or magazines while making exceptions for law enforcement officers. So far, none of the big three law enforcement suppliers — Smith & Wesson, Glock and Sig Sauer — have joined the effort, but Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical and several others have announced the policy change.

We greatly respect and appreciate our nation’s law enforcement officers, but if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer. And if civilians can’t own modern muskets, police shouldn’t either. Civilians and law enforcement personnel are fellow citizens, not subjects.

State news isn’t all bad, however. Ten states have proposed legislation to preempt federal gun bans and protect lawful gun owners. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have all proposed legislation to protect firearms made and kept within their borders. Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Tennessee have already passed such laws.

Finally, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks state guns bans will reach the Court. We agree, and we don’t doubt Scalia is itching to reiterate that the Court meant what it said in its Heller and McDonald rulings, and that the Second Amendment also means what it says.

During the debate in Colorado about concealed carry on campus, Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar explained why women don’t need guns for self-defense against would-be rapists: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Hot Air’s Mary Katherine Ham retorted, “Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment!”

Never fear, the University of Colorado posted some safety tips for avoiding rape, including “kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.” Failing that, “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” They conclude, “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Well, unless you decide carrying a firearm is appropriate. Call boxes, whistles and vomiting are peachy ideas, but a handgun would be far better. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Another legislator, Democrat State Senator Jesse Ulaberri, contended that people don’t need guns for self-defense because that just leads to a “whole crossfire.” And besides, the people in Tucson “stood up to defend themselves … and they did it with ball point pens.”

Within the last two weeks the forces of the progressive, ultra-liberal cabal have managed to amass a coordinated front to attack and render null and void the gun rights of average citizens as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun rights enthusiasts say that such actions will provoke civil war.

Today, these forces appear to be simultaneously unleashing their attack on all fronts, from attempting to prevent citizens from gaining access to brass for the purpose of making their own ammunition to the push by leftwing extremists to bully banks into refusing to give loans to gun manufacturers, effectively putting gun makers out of business.

Further, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her so-called “assault weapons ban” bill Thursday, which actually bans much more than semiautomatic rifles. The bill goes after handguns, shotguns, and ammunition as well. It also sets a federal limit on the number of rounds each citizen can legally possess.

Gun rights groups across the country, which are not known for extremism but for representing citizens from every walk of life, from Democrat to Republican, liberal to conservative, the non-religious to Christian, have warned repeatedly that should the federal government launch this type of attack on the gun rights of citizens, outright civil war would ensue.

That warning was no mere idle threat. The citizens in the heartland are angry, fired up, and ready to defend their Constitution and their rights. The battle lines are being drawn now. This nation stands closer to armed conflict between its own citizens as never before since the Civil War of the 1860s.

The laws being proposed currently will automatically criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens who own the types of guns the government wishes to ban. For example, the handgun of choice for most women and homeowners are the semiautomatic variety made by Sig Sauer, Kel-Tec, and other brands that fire multiple rounds quickly.

And if citizens refuse to comply like sheep with the direct tyrannical assault on our rights, apparently the Obama administration has every intention of using force against our own citizens if they resist turning over their guns and registering the guns they are allowed to keep.

A rumor has been floating around Washington concerning a new mandate the Obama administration allegedly implemented that would require military personnel to state, up front, that they are willing to open fire upon American citizens on our own soil if ordered to do so.

In addition, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea reported today a most disturbing story out of Fort Drum, N.Y. indicating that the military installation is destroying used ammunition brass, rendering it useless for citizens to purchase in what is known as “reloading” — the practice of making homemade ammunition using expended brass.

The administration attempted this once before and was ordered by Congress to stop. The practice is also against the law, but the installation apparently is still engaging in the practice.

Thus, a united front has amassed on the Left that is determined to shove gun bans, gun registration, and gun and ammo control down the throats of citizens who have always operated under the assumption that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many infringements will it take to get clear-headed, patriotic citizens to rise up and demand that the government cease and desist? It appears that such a time has come.